Read this if you dare. If you do, then your masochism becomes you. It started out with lelangir bugging me about this Kannagi post he’s writing, then it turned into a 4-way-free-for-all involving Ponitfus and Cuchlann from Superfanicom. It actually has no images (but the language is graphic), 11,001 words, (Pontifus’ count) after trimming some of the private and personal parts. What’s in it? A discourse on discourse, art, meaning, and yes – Kannagi.

lelangir: you there?

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: cool, I need help thinking through this post

Ghostlightning: how goes?
okay

lelangir: so from what I’ve seen, Kannagi’s reception is that the plot sucks
but I’m arguing that it doesn
and so I was thinking

Ghostlightning: glad to help because i have a long term project that i need your assistance in a big way
okay

lelangir: what is the relationship between plot and genre?
lemme email you what i have so far

Ghostlightning: fire

lelangir: ok

Ghostlightning: my quick impression: the plot is generic, but it doesn’t make it bad

lelangir: hmmm

Ghostlightning: how many unique plots are there anyway?

lelangir: well kannagi is interesting

Ghostlightning: the disconnect that people feel
i think

lelangir: you could say its plot in and of itself is a double entendre
are we thinking of it as social commentary?
incidental?
or…typical harem crap?

Ghostlightning: is because teh execution in the chemistry is SO GOOD

lelangir: the latter, then there is no plot
the former, the plot is VERY intricate

Ghostlightning: but at the expense of a rushed conclusion, that seems forced

lelangir: and so the harm mush is predicated on its “incidental social commentary”

Ghostlightning: making people say: bad plot

lelangir: hehe but wiat
its not rushed

Ghostlightning: about what you’re saying:

lelangir: because the “lack of plot” was the plot itself

Ghostlightning: but there is a plot:
boy meets girl
girl has big reveal: she’s a goddess
conflict: IS SHE REALLY?

lelangir: I think the fanservice superficial plot is more vehicular to the metaphorical content

Ghostlightning: consequence of conflict: complication of ordinary high school life

lelangir: in the anime, what we see first and foremost is Nagi years ago

Ghostlightning: the metaphorical content does not equal plot

lelangir: clad in traditional clothing as goddess
hmm

Ghostlightning: plot can be ‘bad’ but metaphorical content can be awesome
kannagi’s metaphorical content is awesome imo
plot is ordinary
not a value judgment

lelangir: but the metaphorical content is so well lined up that I dont think it cant be anything but plot

Ghostlightning: hmmm

lelangir: the aspects of Kannagi that are mainstream “broadcasted” are whats incidental

Ghostlightning: let’s distinguish the metaphorical content

lelangir: IMO the point of Kannagi was Nagi’s idolatry
and no one picks this up

Ghostlightning: i would approach it as a “reading”

lelangir: that’s because they’re too caught up in what you define as “plot”
but I think here it’s switched

Ghostlightning: and not as a statement against those who dismiss kannagi
an xist reading of kannagi

lelangir: that’s good, since we know it has to make money

Ghostlightning: the rest of the sphere are STUCK in their formalist reading methodology

lelangir: and it has
industry, etc.

Ghostlightning: plot, character, etc
forms
structure

lelangir: well
its metaphors and “plot” are coextensive

Ghostlightning: so they can argue good plot, bad plot
and you can read it from a framework
of religion/idolatry

lelangir: but while its “plot” seems stupid and “inert” (as in not going anywhere, slice of life), this is precisely what propels its metaphorical content, nagi’s search for idolatry

Ghostlightning: if it were me, i would downplay plot ‘valuation’

lelangir: i dont get it

Ghostlightning: the commentary will appropriate your reading
and then people will use your arguments
to say that kannagi has a good plot lol

lelangir: I still think its metaphorical content is sufficient enough to upset the canon of plot

Ghostlightning: okay
please explain
‘canon of plot’

lelangir: well that “plot” is superficial
like you said, boy meets girl, etc.

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: vs. idolatry, “metaphores”
which constitutes “plot”?
is plot the same as “watching”?

lelangir: equal in form but not in effect
those are more rhetorical
for fanservice

Ghostlightning: zange’s competition with nagi

lelangir: at least the cliche childhood friend thing
hmm
so this suggests subplots are hierarchical

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: zange/nagi is really just a contribution to nagi’s idolatry
christianity vs. shintoism

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: ok, so that’s just a complex form of story-telling
I still don’t get it….its the 2nd paragraph of the article

Ghostlightning: rather, it’s just the use of forms

lelangir: i was trying to theorize a 2nd form of plot vis-a-vis genre

Ghostlightning: this one: Kannagi isn’t so easily reducible to polarized styles precisely because of its plot. On the one hand, we could say that the plot functions as an adhesive that produces sensibility within the anime, but this perspective pigeonholes us back in the thought that genre is linearly coextensive with plot, which is to say that distinct sections of the progression of the story will be accompanied by correlating genres – comedy, drama, slice of life, and so forth. When we view Kannagi this way, we already set an expectation that
?

lelangir: yeah
that genre is linearly coextensive with plot
or….
and that’s where i went blak
blank

lelangir: and that’s where I thought the heirarchy of plot/genre was upset

Ghostlightning: particular to specific works

lelangir: ok
yeah

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: so which form does kannagi utilize
I’m just having a hard time articulating this

Ghostlightning: i can imagine

lelangir: the first case is how plot is a glue that connects genre
the second is how everything is already cohesive in the first place
but it’s not visible
it takes something more to realize it

Ghostlightning: connects genre to what?

lelangir: to each other
this is why people are like “emo jin is stupid”
its not because it’s directly related to plot
emo jin isn’t irrelevant at all
poorly directed perhaps
but I construed viewer displease as “i dont get how this has to do with anything”

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: how comedy is disparate to drama
but….are they really disparate at all?

Ghostlightning: they go together well when done expertly
the comedy in kannagi is done expertly imo

lelangir: ok ooooo
so i just had it….

Ghostlightning: the drama – the jury’s still out

lelangir: when things aren’t viewed as disparate, it becomes hierarchical, one becomes the vehicle for the other

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: and plot isn’t the railway anymore
plot isn’t the cohesive force…
it’s like a product now
or something

Ghostlightning: wait

lelangir: yeah that’s not right…

Ghostlightning: plot, formerly is the railway to deliver the laughs, the tears etc?
i can agree with that
but that’s not necessarily subverted
by the metaphorical content
which is ’srs bsns’
neither necessarily comedic or tragic
dramatic

Ghostlightning: that she’s not sure of her divinity
is dramatic only because her character made so much of it
not that dramatic in itself
or, let’s take a big plot twist example:
“LUKE, I AM YOUR FATHER”
is that in itself dramatic?
or is it made so by the reaction:
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”
dramatic = sad
opposite of comedy
never mind the narm/unitntentional comedy of the scene

lelangir: ok
though…im still having a hard time seeing how that contributes to the relationship between genre/plot
or rather
a specific type of rel.

Ghostlightning: use sets
all genres have plots

lelangir: what I parced from vader example was that we cannot separate the event and the reception
the reception “enacts” the event
or at least amplifies it
I think even if Vader said “I am HIS father” directly to the audience in a soliloquy
the audience would be ‘OMFGWTFBBQHAX’

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: would still be*

Ghostlightning: i agree
it’s still dramatic

lelangir: hmm lol lemme ask
do you get what i’m trying to get at?
the two specific kinds of relationships between genre/plot

Ghostlightning: genre and plot relationship

lelangir: in the first, plot is all-encompassing
it contains genre

Ghostlightning: ok

lelangir: it acts as an adhesive
so the 2nd must upset the 1st
the 2nd is a counter theory

Ghostlightning: okay

lelangir: but i cannot articulate in such a way that it makes sense

Ghostlightning: but to say that, would mean…
that genre can make plot irrelevant?
i sense the sense in it… but

lelangir: yes….when there is no plot
hidamari sketch
lucky star

Ghostlightning: ahhh
yes

lelangir: minami ke (1st season)

Ghostlightning: but kannagi has a plot, yes?

lelangir: mmhm…subplots too, as we established

Ghostlightning: two, arguably right?

lelangir: yup

Ghostlightning: so it’s difficult to use it an example to prove the counter theory

lelangir: …how so?

Ghostlightning: sort of like, “it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
is this what you’re saying now?

lelangir: the fact that “non-plots” exist shouldn’t refute this binary
because it’s not even in the same paradigm
“non-plot” isn’t in the “plot” paradigm
our “plot” paradigm can be constituted of several theories
“non-plots” should be irrelevant here I think

Ghostlightning: ok, list

lelangir: wait…”it works great with lucky star, it works too with kanagi if you read deep enough”
no…hmm…
no, like i said, it cant “work” because that’s a theoretical paradigm shift
apples and oranges

Ghostlightning: or, the enjoyment of kannagi is not shackled by its plot
limited by
its plot
and subplots

lelangir: right
yes
ah yes
shiet
oh god
then what is the rel. between COMEDY and plot????
(needs….to….read….aristotle….nao)

Ghostlightning: hmmm

lelangir: oh shiiiiet
so….is comedy like microplot?

Ghostlightning: again, the events in the plot can be comedic (situational comedy)

lelangir: like a shitload of 4-komas inserted together?

Ghostlightning: or jokes

lelangir: nearly in a nonsequiter fashion?
wait

Ghostlightning: yeah

lelangir: so
have you seen okawari?

Ghostlightning: micro-plots
sorry no

lelangir: hm ok
but yeah you get it
miniami-ke is microplot
a bunch of unrelated microplots

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but okawari is macroplot
one plot per episode
thats why everone hates it
vis-a-vis first season

Ghostlightning: reveal is simply this: no sruprises
how exactly tsundere is kagamin

lelangir: what about I am yuor father?
that’s surprise + revealment

Ghostlightning: how MUCH of an otaku is konata

lelangir: yeah precisely
it’s just amplification

Ghostlightning: yes, as opposed to starwars
the linear plot, twists in a new direction
instead of MUST DESTROY VADER, it becomes MUST SAVE VADER, there is good in him

lelangir: ah

Ghostlightning: from the viewer’s standpoint, there is value in both
one can say ls is entirely exposition

lelangir: yeah

Ghostlightning: but somehow, there is value in that

lelangir: “value”

Ghostlightning: because it is entertaining, funny

lelangir: so….going back again lol

Ghostlightning: value = the utility the viewer experiences from the subject

lelangir: mmh
mmhm
plot is the vehicle for genre

Ghostlightning: so there is value in the experience of watching kannagi, if one ignores the plot

lelangir: plot doesnt discriminate between genre
slice of life is an exception

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: but…i’m concerning people that took plot into account and were disappointed
is there a way to say that their disappointment wasn’t “properly directed”?

Ghostlightning: they were looking for plot, or were forced to look at the plot
nagi pun!

lelangir: that kannagi disrupts the notion that plot is a conduit for genre
lol

Ghostlightning: ‘properly directed’

lelangir: lol…that they were wrong
guy a: “dude this plot sucks”
guy b: “no, you’re just looking at it the wrong way”
guy c: “this different perspective is _____”

Ghostlightning: the game here is that it is foolish to immediately dismiss kannagi

lelangir: right

Ghostlightning: due to what you failed to see

lelangir: but we said that already
that there are subplots
ok
bu..ksalfkjasf
hmmmm
right
so this is where I said that its subplot disrupts “plot” itself
subplot disrupts plot as a conduit for genre
subplot disrupts genre
???

Ghostlightning: no
that’s confusing

lelangir: genre is already overgeneralized
….nice pun?

Ghostlightning: you can simply say, that underneath all this, is an essay on religion (idols, commodification)
and the fact that it was entertaining to watch, makes it awesome
because essays on religion aren’t supposed to be entertaining

Pontifus: and, regarding genre and plot, cuchlann would be the one to ask…i don’t really like genre, and i’m trying to make an argument for genre being a superfluous construct (though i haven’t really figured it out yet)

lelangir: yes

Ghostlightning: bwahahahahaha

lelangir: but for all intensive purposes
genre not as discursive
as “style”
“approach”

lelangir: the kannagi collection
look at kabitzin’s remarks
he’s like “this sucks, i dont get it, it doesnt make sense”
so why dont the distinct elements make sense?
grrrrr, uguu~

Pontifus: did either of you not like nagi very much?
or am i the only one in the universe?

Ghostlightning: read from a framework of failure, it all makes sense!

lelangir: i liked her
lol
oh jesus…

Ghostlightning: i like her so much more now

lelangir: HELP ME ANSWER MY QUESTION
LISTEN TO MY SONG

Ghostlightning: NAGI, THE ROMANCE OF FAIL

lelangir: fucking UGUU

Pontifus: i didn’t DISlike her, but she didn’t make me fangasm, either
alright, back on topic!

lelangir: right
so
plot is a conduit for intraparadigmatic genre
which is to say
when an anime deploys several genres within the same series
kannagi ie
the plot connects comedy and drama
but
what is the counter theory
theory1: plot is vehicular
theory2: genre isnt really disparate at all….so how does plot function?
i dont know….

lelangir: for all intensive purposes here
but in kannagi they’re very distinct
emo doesn’t equal comedy
they dont even self-satirize their emo

Ghostlightning: but to categorize a subject as specifically drama, one must ignore the intentional fallacey

Pontifus: you think so?

Ghostlightning: and go by how it’s marketed

lelangir: yeah
marketed as comedy
with harem undertones

Pontifus: i think that, maybe, if the drama (dorama or emo though it may be) serves comedy, ultimately, then it falls under comedy…it’s just not funny yet, but it promises humor
and if it isn’t ultimately funny, then it’s tragedy

lelangir: …hmm….

Pontifus: funny and/or generally happy

lelangir: i dont get it…
“generally”
but it isn’t monolithic

Ghostlightning: so people who dismiss kannagi, dismiss it within the framework of the market

lelangir: kannagi utilizes different approaches in tandem with the progression of its plot
“the market”

Ghostlightning: they are the consumers – the target market that kannagi “missed”

lelangir: which is different than the author (oh SHI- barthes)

Pontifus: now, i don’t know about the market

lelangir: wait ghostlightning hold on
“[t]his is my first original work. Whenever I thought it was a joke, it became too serious. And whenever I thought it was serious, it became a joke. That’s the kind of manga I’m aiming it to be.”
that upsets it

Ghostlightning: goodbye barthes

Pontifus: nooo, barthes, come back!

lelangir: lol
he is gooooone now
eri has spoken
BUTTTT
its different than the anime!
oh shi-

Ghostlightning: but the thing is, the author HAS LESS POWER

lelangir: vis-a-vis the viewer
yes
the market appropriates it
“the market”
which is just discursive

Ghostlightning: because the means of production is held by someone else

Pontifus: i can’t really agree that anything the author said is relevant here at all, lol
i don’t care what the creative process was, or even about the manga at all

Ghostlightning: the relevant thing here is what the marketers are intending

Pontifus: kannagi the anime is what it is

Ghostlightning: they invested in it
they distributed it

lelangir: ok Karl
Karl-chan

Ghostlightning: but the market has spoken: we dun liek it

Pontifus: they created an authorial consciousness, that the reader/viewer fills

lelangir: i was kinda sad i missed out a red haied loli tsundere with hot pants
but….i got tsugumi
red haired [at times tsundere] with seifafuku

Ghostlightning: i’m possessed by cuchlann and Ghostlightning: the market received it well, implying they are entertained and have been recommending it to firends, high entertainment value = high literary value

lelangir: er, seira….

Ghostlightning: so bloggers, STFU

lelangir: huh?

Pontifus: nonononononono
noooooooooooo

lelangir: since when does entertainment value = literary value

Pontifus: all things have the same value

lelangir: ?

Ghostlightning: cuchlann quotes this michael guy

lelangir: “value”
define…….

Pontifus: literary value

lelangir: idealistically
not politically

Ghostlightning: value = utility that a readery experiences from the subject

lelangir: in essence anime is not deep

Ghostlightning: reader/consumer

lelangir: [oh shi- calling omo]
because its controlled by the industry
completely different histories
the history of literature vs. the history of anime

Pontifus: fuck, i need cuchlann’s aid!

lelangir: totally different

Pontifus: i’m telling him to jump on google

Ghostlightning: pontifus, i get what you’re saying

lelangir: me too
but i’m not up for it
we’re in a very political situation
so disregarding it is like….fljalewrjfoi

Ghostlightning: but the context here is that the readers/bloggers value shit the way they do
heirarchies and all taht

lelangir: yes
the discourse
produced by the industry/market
the literary value paradigm is irrelevant

Ghostlightning: but i’m with you ponti

lelangir: [hence ‘anime is not deep’]

Pontifus: “the literary value paradigm is irrelevant”

Ghostlightning: nothing can be invalidated

Pontifus: AAAAAGH

lelangir: Pontifus, what “literary value” doesnt seem to take into consideration is discourse
in that discourse produces value

Ghostlightning: no need to scream, you can’t be invalidated LOOOOOL

Pontifus: right

lelangir: value is predicated upon discourse

Pontifus: but here’s the thing
no, wait, scratch that

lelangir: muahauahauahuah
you cannot beeat foucault

Pontifus: yes discourse produces value, but i think one could pretty much talk about anything…i think that latent value is basically value

lelangir: latent value?
oh shit
chuchlann is on!

Pontifus: a thing around which there is no discourse COULD have discourse, and that’s enough

Ghostlightning: hmmm, even latent value is put there by a “prime valuator”

Pontifus: i don’t think it’s “put” there, i think it’s just there

lelangir: no wait nonnonnonononono

Ghostlightning: hence, value is relative to valuer
RELATIVE

lelangir: things have no meaning until it is represented
representation is CONSTITUTIVE of meaning

Ghostlightning: YES

lelangir: there is no “thing” before it is represented
representation MAKES the thing

Ghostlightning: there is NO KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT LANGUAGE

lelangir: yes

Pontifus: yeah, i know
hang on, let me process

lelangir: just to let you know

Ghostlightning: tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh

lelangir: i’m like, in a constant state of jizzing right now
lmfao
“tihs is funner tahn i thuotgh”

Ghostlightning: owen’s post resonates within me

lelangir: the amount of typos makes that hilarious for some reason

Ghostlightning: but that typo is artifice

lelangir: llololowwwwwwww

Pontifus: alright, i’m ready

Ghostlightning: synthetic comedy

lelangir: oh my jizzzzzzzzzz
FUCK

Cuchlann has joined

Pontifus: narrative art doesn’t need discourse to have value, insofar as discourse is communication between art experiencers…in fact, discourse is only possible to a point
it only needs, in my estimation, one person to experience it

Cuchlann: Okay, so what’s happening here?

Pontifus: how to summarize, lol

lelangir: well

Ghostlightning: DISCOURSE can be between the subject and the viewer/reader

lelangir: we’re talking about kannagi
if you’d believe it
discourse is emepheral

Ghostlightning: DESHO?!

Pontifus: everyone, summarize your position!

Cuchlann: Well of course you are. And clearly, this is why the next podcast needs to happen soon.

lelangir: wait…
discourse is between the things
subjects are constituent of it
they create it
and anime is its objec
the discourse ON anime

Pontifus: right, and i think that isn’t necessary for art to have value

Ghostlightning: like right now, i’m having a righteous discussion with ep 06 of SDF macross. Global you are an idiot.

lelangir: you think eh?
but that’s your discourse

Ghostlightning: value is not necessary
value is contingent

lelangir: the discourse in which you are situated
take away your discourse, it takes away your meaning
then, what is value?
an empty signifier

Ghostlightning: value = is the utility of a being experiencing a subject
the utility being gained

lelangir: just because your “value” means to say that discourse is irrelevant…that in itself is irrelevant because it NEEDS discourse to in itself have meaning
er, i didnt mean to come off as offensive..

Pontifus: i’m not saying that ALL discourse is irrelevant, or that discourse is even irrelevant at all, but that the value of art isn’t predicated entirely upon discourse between people, and that i don’t necessarily think there are variant “levels” of value

Ghostlightning: there are levels of value!

lelangir: so art has an intrinstic value….

Pontifus: assuming that the relationship between reader and text is discourse, then, sure, discourse is required
no

Cuchlann: Of course, that assumes the discourse works in terms of a binary, which isn’t necessarily true.

lelangir: in a broad, instituationalized sense
not necessarily true yes
but works for those cases

Pontifus: i am now stepping into cuchlann, who is also mobile suit cuchlann-gundam, and setting him on autopilot

lelangir: ok here’s an example

Cuchlann: I propose that we should use a different word, and not “discourse,” as academically the word is typically used to mean the setting within which people discuss topics.

lelangir: the subject does not produe knowledge

Ghostlightning: binaries are just asses waiting to be raped by deconstruction lol

lelangir: “setting”…
i’ve been inculcated into discourse as like, the godliest device ever

Cuchlann: Or group. As we are busily quibbling over words, I will admit “setting” is not the best choice.

lelangir: ok
well
what is the poit of not using discourse as an analytic tool?

Cuchlann: Yes, I can tell. I think you’re in the place I was several years ago, when you discovered a good critical theory and decided it was the holy of holies. 🙂

lelangir: what were we talkinga bout again?

Pontifus: in my mind, what you’re calling discourse is just existential existence…it’s the only thing worth considering, imo, so there isn’t even any need to discuss anything “beyond” it
there is no beyond

Ghostlightning: LIEK ME AND DECONSTRUCTION LOL

Cuchlann: Discourse the act of using analytic tools, in my terminology.

lelangir: discourse is the act?

Cuchlann: I’m trying to make sure you know what I’m saying when I say it.
Yes.

Ghostlightning: i realize that i no longer contribute value to this discussion

lelangir: well discourse is also practice
me shooting a basket contributes to the discourse on basketball

Cuchlann: Any act, repeated, is practice.

Ghostlightning: but i will derive value from it by LURKING
LURK MODE ON

Cuchlann: No, it doesn’t. You shooting a basket and learning a new way to consider the act, then telling others — that contributes to the discourse.

lelangir: discourse neednt be ‘active’
you’re actively participating in it
by subjugating yourself to it

Cuchlann: I’m trying to copy-paste what Pontifus just said, but it won’t let me.

lelangir: the only way to avoid discourse is to scoop your eyes out and slit your ears off
“right, but, correct me if i’m wrong, it seems like you’re saying that discourse is the entire range of possible actions, thoughts, etc.”
“possible”….yes, sort of

Cuchlann: Here’s the first point of my poly-pronged point: if everything is discourse, there’s no point in discussing it, as it’s everything. Thus, it’s nothing.

Pontifus: exactly
existentialism ftw

Cuchlann: It has nothing to contrast it in the chain of meaning.

lelangir: no

Cuchlann: Not even existentialism, just pragmatic defining of critical terms.

lelangir: discourse points out holes in itself

Pontifus: i just like that word

lelangir: discouse expands, contracts

Ghostlightning: existentialism 4tw

lelangir: reconstitutes
no yesssss

Pontifus: sure, but anything outside of it doesn’t exist, right?

Cuchlann: All right, let’s go on to prong number two…

lelangir: discourse theory takes into account silence
booya
it contains in itself its antithesis
without synthesizing

Cuchlann: Do we all agree that a piece of art has no meaning without a viewer?

Ghostlightning: LELANGIR: WHAT IS NOT DISCOURSE?

lelangir: silence
no meaning
i’m being sophist probably

Pontifus: but if silence is the opposite of discourse, and discourse is all that is, all i can concern myself with as a human being is all that is, and therefore silence doesn’t exist

Cuchlann: Silence is a perfectly acceptable answer, and thus part of discourse.

lelangir: i didnt say discourse was all that is
discourse is, paradoxicaly, everything and nothing
take race for instance
you MUST have race

Cuchlann: Which means it’s not very good for conversation.

lelangir: but is is NOTHING
it doesnt exist

Cuchlann: Actually, it’s not necessary to have race as a construction, it’s just habitual at this point in human history.

lelangir: nationalism too

Ghostlightning: silence in the context of a conversation is not NOT DISCOURSE

Pontifus: race in the sense of different kinds of human beings?

Ghostlightning: right?

lelangir: yes

Pontifus: because, yeah, i don’t think that’s necessary

lelangir: black/ white w/e
…………yeah it is

Pontifus: it’s habitual

lelangir: in this specific political history it is
well discourse is inert
it doesnt move
it is specific
yes

Cuchlann: Answers, though, real quick: does a book have content if no one reads it?

Pontifus: no

Cuchlann: I use “read” in the broad sense.

Pontifus: well, not really

lelangir: oh god…uhhmmm
yes
it needs an author

Pontifus: granted that the author has read it, probably

Cuchlann: Not necessarily.

Pontifus: it doesn’t have meaning “by itself,” no

Ghostlightning: the author who rote it?
read while writing

lelangir: [again to reiterate, i’m jizzing]

Cuchlann: And anyway, the “reading” of the author violates the terms of my question.

lelangir: wait
iin your sentence

Cuchlann: If no one’s read the book, does it have any content?

lelangir: is the author the subject or the object

Cuchlann: The author is outside the scope of my question.
You’re in a room with a book. You’re illiterate.

lelangir: i mean

Pontifus: no, it doesn’t have meaning on its own, says i

lelangir: ok

Cuchlann: You’re unaware of the social mores concerning books.

Pontifus: well, then the book might mean firewood, but we’re talking about the text, i guess, lol

lelangir: but wait
false dichotomy?

Cuchlann: Pontifus has hit on where I’m going, at any rate.

lelangir: shit
owen term
sorry

lelangir: in the absense of one type of meaning is there total lack of meaning?

Cuchlann: Without reading, a book is merely paper and ink.

lelangir: “specific” social norms arent everything

Cuchlann: I’m talking about artistic meaning here, sorry.

lelangir: it could reprsent that the reader is stupid
oh ok
yes
so if you’re illiterate
artistic meaning is impossible
wait
no
not necessarily
not if you’re inculcated into the SOCIAL DISCOURSE that books are inherently beautiful

Cuchlann: Artistic meaning from reading is impossible.
I said outside that.

lelangir: LIKE FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER????

Cuchlann: Yes.

lelangir: if i remember….

Cuchlann: This is a philosophical hypothetical.

Pontifus: GOTHIC, OH SHI-

lelangir: lol

Cuchlann: Excellent example, actually.
If the Creature hadn’t learned to read, what would the books he found have meant to him?

Pontifus: it makes me really happy that, for the most part, i can just reach over and grab the pertinent examples off my shelves

lelangir: i have stuart hall et al. sitting here…

Cuchlann: I would have to go to another room, and step over, uh, other books, but yes.

Pontifus: which i hope means i’m doing pretty well as far as collecting, lol

lelangir: oh shit and some mary shelley too!

Cuchlann: I think I have my Aristotle in here right now…

lelangir: poetics is right here
collecting dust

Pontifus: poor poetics

Cuchlann: Yes, in the stack with the Shakespeare essays, the grammar book, and the Norton critical theory text.

lelangir: 😦
so yeah…..

Cuchlann: Okay, so in our hypothetical situation, the book is drained of all artistic meaning.

lelangir: insofar as you are illiterate

Cuchlann: Yes, that’s given.

lelangir: incapable of directly producing experiential meaning
but that is not social meaning

Cuchlann: Now, here’s the part that pleases lelangir: this means that discourse is necessary for art to function.

lelangir: /jizz
isn’t art discursive anyway?
me farting is art

Cuchlann: Here’s the part that doesn’t please him: the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.

lelangir: socrates raping a young boy is art

Cuchlann: If done before an audience, yes, both can be true.

lelangir: ah yes!
the audience is abstracted
reduced to a feeling

Ghostlightning: the audience could be the boy itself

lelangir: ” the art itself must necessarily be outside the discourse itself, as it has no meaning.”
i dont get that part

Cuchlann: The audience must necessarily be removed from the art, as art has no practical purpose — and the boy would have practical concerns at that point.

lelangir: how is it necssary?
no wait
it’s not removed
because the discourse created it

Cuchlann: Discourse is about making meaning. Art makes no meaning on its own, and cannot take part in discourse, as discourse is a two-way street.

lelangir: as we said before
representation is constitutive of meaning
there is no meaning outside representation

Pontifus: ok, hang on there

Ghostlightning: activities with practical purposes cannot be read as art? how come?

lelangir: it did not exist prior to representation

Cuchlann: I cite Oscar Wilde.

Pontifus: how analogous is the phenomenological idea of the author consciousness dispossessing the reader to discourse?

Cuchlann: “All art is quite useless.”
I’ll dig up a link…

lelangir: getting a bit marxist here
how does art make no meaning?
what if its social commentary via play?

lelangir: wait…how’s that in rel. to an argument
isn’t an argument just a statement?

Ghostlightning: i argue even artistic value is a sign agreed upon by a society

Cuchlann: A statement that can be argued with, but yes.

lelangir: what it is directed at seems irrelevant

Ghostlightning: … a society of art theorists

lelangir: vis-a-vis its existential value
which is immutable
but its discourse potency….that’s different

Pontifus: “artistic value” as a term, sure, but not artistic value as applied

Ghostlightning: so art has no intrinsic value, as a meaning, has less power in practice

lelangir: i dont get it

Cuchlann: Actually, the lack of intrinsic meaning gives it more power.

Pontifus: agreed

lelangir: how?

Cuchlann: A crafted chair can be beautifully wrought, but ultimately it is a tool.

Ghostlightning: to use a cruder example, atheism (no theo) has less power than theism (yes theo)

Cuchlann: And as such, eventually even the most sensitive person will view it as a chair, to be sat upon.

lelangir: I guess I’m confused by greg’s use of “power”

Cuchlann: But art, with no use but to be art, to be “beautiful,” can never be written off as anything else.

lelangir: which is a loaded word in foucaultism…
oh wait hold on
art is art insofar as it has a definition
where did that definition come from?

Cuchlann: Ah. Power to affect an audience aesthetically.

Ghostlightning: if i sit on that artful chair, even artfully, am i reducing its artistic value?

Cuchlann: My definition comes from Wilde.

lelangir: oh shi- barthes again…

Cuchlann: I would say you aren’t affecting it, unless you break it.

lelangir: hmmmmmm sosifdkjsosjsojKJ!J!OIU$(*&(U93wt5w94u
so

Cuchlann: You simply occlude it, like standing in front of a painting.

lelangir: we’ve created art such that it has the agency to cast off structural hegemony
sorry i love that terminology
art has become art

Ghostlightning: the viewer, cannot experience the art the painter made, BUT HE CAN EXPERIENCE THE ART OF ME STANDING ARTFULLY IN FRONT OF IT

lelangir: yes

Ghostlightning: “ghostlightning’s shadow over cubism”

lelangir: but what is “art”
art came from where?
we say ‘art is art’
but that’s circular i think….

Cuchlann: Wilde again: We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.
Art is a thing to be admired intensely.

lelangir: but….
that doesn’t consider its origin
or is origin pointless

Cuchlann: The origin is unimportant.

lelangir: why?

Cuchlann: The art stands before you. The author does not.

lelangir: no

Cuchlann: What is the origin of Beowulf?

lelangir: not origin as in author
origin as in meaning of the meaning of art

Cuchlann: The meaning is between you and the art.
That isn’t the origin.

Ghostlightning: etymology of art plz

Cuchlann: It’s the product of you consuming the art.

Pontifus: @ghostlightning observe, if you will, a battle of gods

lelangir: but
art has to be predicated upon something
everything is predicated
nothing is ahistoric
hence, from whence did art arrive

Pontifus: right, so
if nothing is ahistoric
“ahistoric” is nothing

lelangir: art cannot just exist all of a sudden

Pontifus: it doesn’t exist

Cuchlann: Art entered English through Anglo-Norman, from Old French.

Pontifus: so how is that important?

Cuchlann: It is created, but the artist effaces the creation with the completed work.

lelangir: wait
I mean
even art in an existential sense

Cuchlann: An orchestra doesn’t reveal its practices to the audience, only the performance.

Pontifus: which almost seems to be the way it has to be, but i haven’t put a lot of thought into that, so don’t ask me to back it up

lelangir: what is significant is each contesting theory’s political relevance

Cuchlann: No, political relevance is completely unimportant.

Ghostlightning: it is significant, yes, but i dunno about ultimate significance

lelangir: how’s it irrelevant?

Cuchlann: It’s an after-affect of the passage of art through consciousness.

Pontifus: it’s sociology

Ghostlightning: yea how?

lelangir: [insofar as we mean political in the same way]
i thought we said all theories were equal
one theory claims art is something beyond theory

Cuchlann: And I’m giving you mine. That’s what this conversation is, yes? ^_^

lelangir: so…we agree to disagree
that’s the end right?
so its FOR FUNNNNN
but yeah…
anyway

Cuchlann: It’s always the end. But didn’t you enjoy yourself?

lelangir: yeah

Ghostlightning: the art of conversation

Cuchlann: See, in my version, that’s the point.

lelangir: that’s actually the best conclusion lol
to enjoy yourself
?

Cuchlann: Aesthetic experience achieved.

Ghostlightning: yes

lelangir: i still dont like that….
[i’m still pleasuring myself]

Ghostlightning: and with agreement, the feeling is intensified

lelangir: if one theory proclaims art above theory

Cuchlann: Well, on a personal level, let me put it to you this way–

lelangir: that seems contradictory
it needs itself to invalidate itelf

Cuchlann: I didn’t start reading because of a political end (in any sense of the word political). I read habitually because I read once and the aesthetic experience appealed to me more than other pursuits.
And I never claimed art was above theory. In fact, when people claim that, I get angry.

lelangir: uhoh

Ghostlightning: nothing is intrinsically valuable over another thing

lelangir: i dont get it though…

Ghostlightning: people assign values into heirarchies

Cuchlann: Don’t get what?

lelangir: how….art can be nothing
but it needs meaning to be described in such a way
no wait
no it doesnt

Pontifus: thus spake derrida, kinda

lelangir: its nothing regardless
…

Ghostlightning: all this, is nothing, empty and meaningless

Pontifus: art being nothing is what lets it mean anything at all

lelangir: it exists if i dont see it
shiet…

Cuchlann: Who, like Zarathustra, found himself stinking in a cave, what?

lelangir: but then it doesnt exist…

Ghostlightning: its meaning is but a contingency of us meaning-makers

lelangir: so does that theory merely state that things are even if they aren’t?
ungh

Ghostlightning: and we, like the meaning, are ephemeral

Cuchlann: I never said art is nothing.
I said art has no intrinsic meaning. There’s a difference.

Pontifus: or, yeah

Cuchlann: Nothing has an intrinsic meaning.

lelangir: yes

Cuchlann: Trees don’t, or fire, or floods.

Pontifus: it is something that means nothing, inherently

Cuchlann: But they still exist.

lelangir: what i was getting at….hmmm

Ghostlightning: signs exist

lelangir: “existentialism” describes art as meaningless
do we even need existentialism for that MEANING in and of itself to continue to exist?
the meaning of meaningless

Cuchlann: Sartre… bleh.

Ghostlightning: kannagi exists, for the people who derive meaning from it (writer, producer, distributor, consumer, critic)

lelangir: so

Ghostlightning: and everyone will have an opinion

lelangir: but art is different i think
it’s much more abstract
that made little sense

Ghostlightning: and the majority of agreements, will have weight

Cuchlann: Kannagi exists as a bunch of digital files, and possibly some animation cels — or more likely, more digital files.

lelangir: waitwaitwitw go back to sartre
or is that thought wrong?

Cuchlann: The meaning is in the watching, not the existence.

Ghostlightning: each social group/entity will make it mean something

lelangir: that active knowledge is predicated upon existence of a buttress for that knowledge

Yes, it has its moments. How it read doesn’t compare to how much fun it was to live through. Our statements flew very fast and had little filters, at least speaking for myself.

What do you think of this idea: each person (just limit to the 4 participants) has an ‘influencability index’ – how much they can be influenced by the discussion and its participants? Factors to consider are:

– how new the points are to each person’s consciousness
– (controlled by) how similar the points are to each person’s existing paradigms
– how ‘digitally persuasive’ the rhetoric of the influencer (use of caps, strength of examples)
– how many times each member agrees to a point

There could very well be more. This idea can be extended to the whole sphere, and applied to posts and comments sections. You can then make ‘guesses’ on the ‘learning’ ‘growth’ within the sphere itself. What is your opinion, as an educator?

@ lelangir, The Animanachronism

Raw dialogue is entertaining for me to read too – but it’s more revelatory on how people think than ‘what’.

It’s because The Animanachronism calls it: people will introduce the craft, the artifice, and the second guessing to their raw thoughts – this is what they want to mean!

It’s the latter that they’re committed to and are willing to defend and contribute. Thus, it’s what matters. The raw stuff is interesting in a biographical and epistemological sense perhaps.

Lelangir, I think if you’re right about raw dialogue then I prefer people’s artificially constructed, carefully drafted, redrafted and proof-read versions of what they think to what they really think.

transcribed interviews are always really great. I seem to take much more out of those than their authorial, convoluted texts.

It’s also interesting to take into account that syntax = consciousness. Register plays a big part (formality, informality), and the audience that affects such register. We only decided to post this after our orgasm subsided. Had we originally thought to post it as a “blog post” (which is *uhoh* discursive), it would be much less tl;dr perhaps.

The most meaningless word of all is “trainwreck”, considering how much the term has been bent out of shape from its real life usage.

Online, it is merely a term employed for memetic metaphors people seem to superficially “agree” on but, when you corner them individually for questioning without external backup from others, half the time they don’t even know what they’re talking about beyond the very basic “understanding” involved. So yeah.

Well, I’m not an educator yet; I’m just someone who really wants to be, and likes to think there’s some grad school somewhere who will accept him despite pretty average GRE scores. But I think your idea is interesting, if maybe impossible on a blogospheric scale. That is, it’d be feasible on a small scale, such as in working with this chat of ours, but applying it to the whole sphere…actually, now that I’ve said it’d be incredibly difficult to pull off, I bet lelangir will go and do it.

All the best to you. I actually taught intro to lit classes at uni for 2 years, and while it can give you incomparable moments of elation, most of the time it will be soul-crushing work that can make you bitter about life and welcome the end of all things.

Students are cruel. Not talking about the troblemakers, just that the default behavioral state is indifference, which is the true polar opposite of hate.